Countries where authors publish in South Central Review
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in South Central Review. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by papers published in South Central Review with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites South Central Review more than expected).
Fields of papers published in South Central Review
This network shows the impact of papers published in South Central Review. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers published in South Central Review.
About South Central Review
The 1.0k papers published in South Central Review in the last decades have received a total of 9.2k indexed citations . Papers published in South Central Review usually cover Literature and Literary Theory (385 papers), History (184 papers), Visual Arts and Performing Arts (63 papers), Philosophy (118 papers) and Classics (36 papers) specifically the topics of American and British Literature Analysis (53 papers), French Historical and Cultural Studies (44 papers), Poetry Analysis and Criticism (40 papers), Literature: history, themes, analysis (40 papers), Shakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary Criticism (38 papers), Cinema and Media Studies (34 papers), Contemporary Literature and Criticism (31 papers) and Crime and Detective Fiction Studies (28 papers). The most active scholars publishing in South Central Review are Douglas Kellner, Rey Chow, Lawrence Rainey, J. Paul de Castro, Margaret J. M. Ezell, Julia Kristeva, André Lefèvere, Patricia Meyer Spacks, John Mullan and Dennis Patrick Slattery.
Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive
bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global
research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include
incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and
delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in
Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.